Neuberger Berman PE
Hi All,
I am about to start my second year as an analyst at a BB in London and have been thinking about different career options for the future.
I have come across Neuberger Berman’s PE team in London. As I am not very familiar with them beyond what the team generally does (primaries, secondaries, and co-investments), I would appreciate if anyone could shed some light on the main differences to traditional PE roles. I understand that in their primaries and secondaries business, NB will allocate capital to PE funds that will do the actual investing, and they will invest themselves for co-investments alongside a GP.
Especially any info about culture, comp (progression), and actual work one will do would be greatly appreciated! They make it seem like a very deal-heavy role though I find it difficult to reconcile with their primaries and secondaries business.
Thanks a lot in advance!
Analyst 1 in IB - Cov, sorry there are no responses yet. Maybe one of these topics can point you in the right direction:
More suggestions...
You're welcome.
It’s a good space and growing fast. Pays a bit less than direct PE, for a bit less of the hours, and as these are bigger platforms job stability can be higher.
Equivalent names for you to consider:
HarbourVest
StepStone
Hamilton Lane
Adams Street Partners
Lexington Partners
1
Thanks, that’s very helpful!
Would you say that while being a little lower than direct PE, comp generally should be higher than banking in the long term (given carry, preferable access to co-investments etc.)?
Is it fair to dissect secondary players with the following view:
Group 1 (pureplay secondary firms): Neuberger Berman, HarbourVest, StepStone, Hamilton Lanes of the world
Group 2 (Direct PE players with secondary funds): Blackstone, Landmark (Ares), AlpInvest (Carlyle) of the world
1. If that is the right way to look at things, what are the primary differences of working in Group 1 versus Group 2 at the VP/Principal/MD level?
2. What are the advantages / disadvantages of secondary investing from these types of organizations (e.g. Group 2 probably has better information from direct PE funds, but also conflict of interest with internal direct funds)?
3. Who will win in the long run (or maybe everyone carves out their own niche in the market?)?
4. What does compensation, culture and lifestyle look like?
I'm not necessarily focused on specific firms (although if you have views there that would be additive to the discussion too), but I'm trying to understand the similaries/dissimilarities between Group 1 and Group 2. I could also be off base on bifurcating between the two when thinking about this market
I am not 100% sure what you mean by “pureplay”: Direct Co-Investments, which some of those players do, do not count as Secondaries.
There are smaller firms that only do Secondaries (Coller Capital, Pomona Capital, to name two); there are some that only do Primaries (often family offices). It’s a very big landscape so I’d suggest you spend time understanding the strategies alone. Many of the names I listed have case studies and white papers on their websites, which you can access for free.
Hope this helps!
Group One you listed asset managers / FoFs, there are purely secondary groups though
Interested
One of the fastest growing firms in the space. Very well regarded in the PE world. They can write significant tickets in co-investments (think $300-400-500mm on a single deal). You should understand how much work you will be expected to do in primaries vs. co-invest vs. secondaries.
WLB better than banking and comp in the long term will be multiples of banking due to carry. I believe they have had little churn as it is a pretty cushy job that pays well and culture is quite good.
Would an Internship/ Analyst stint be beneficial if buyout is the long term goal
You’re basically copy pasting the GP’s work, that being said, they coinvest huge amounts it’s wild - came out of nowhere but seeing them consistently deploy 300-500 million slugs
It is true that you are leveraging the work of the GP heavily, however I would not go so far as saying that people in co-invest shops copy paste GP work and that's it.
The amount of deal flow some of the top shops like NB see is probably in the magnitude of 500+ deals a year. You can probably look up the stats for Hamilton Lane as they are listed.
Tell me a fund that sees 500 actionable deals per year with proper phase 2 due diligence done.
The point of co-invest is picking which deal you want to do with which GP. Also in case of co-underwriting if the GP you were working with lost out on the deal, you can still get exposure to the asset through the syndication process with the GP who won.
Because of the amount of deal flow that comes through the door you will inevitably close deals and work on more transactions than in a direct GP. You will never understand the asset in a particular deal as good as the associate at the lead sponsor who built the model and spent 6 months working on the due diligence but you would be able to comfortably speak about the merits of the investment, the main risks etc.
Any idea what exits would be possible from the place? Say for PE or lateral to IB ?
No exit opps (except for other LPs) and bad culture.
Why would you want to move to IB from the buyside? IB is very similar to this but with training and exit opps, so just go there straight and get trained properly.
Similique et qui veritatis dolorum quasi. Nemo eos necessitatibus qui sed saepe explicabo explicabo cum. Corporis neque tenetur id nihil.
Quia libero odio velit fugit commodi amet. Et quia enim et sit ipsum voluptatem aut. Veniam est doloribus at blanditiis quis quasi. Eos et libero est sit cum quibusdam est voluptas. Architecto ex esse facilis blanditiis sequi rerum.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...